Search This Blog

Atheism OR Atheist - Youtube

Friday, November 12, 2010

What am I doing with this Atheism/Irreligion stuff?

…whatever the strengths or weaknesses of the arguments put forward by the New Atheism, it is a truly remarkable phenomenon and therefore needs to be understood from a range of perspectives

(Harries 2010: xii)

The New Atheism started with a collection of popular academic and journalistic texts which were published from 2004 to 2007. It is a remarkable fact that these books, promoting atheism and arguing against religion, typically in the name of science and reason, have made best-sellers’ lists. Love it or loath it, this uprising of public atheism has led to a newly visible player in the marketplace of popular worldviews. This should be of interest to those of us concerned with the history and social dynamics of religion and science. The new visibility of Atheism could indicate the growing presence of a population that may be more interested in the non-religious community structures being created by the New Atheists. Thus the New Atheism could be viewed as a potentially important support structure for a rising demographic. But what will be the effects of a group like this?

The relatively recent emergence of this social group means that little study has been undertaken on the New Atheism. In fact, Zuckerman et al. (2010) argue that until recently (mostly 2010) there has been little social scientific study on the entire phenomenon of atheism/irreligion (approx. 2 studies per year from 1967-2002). So at this point the Social Sciences are largely unaware of who these New Atheists are, what they believe, and what affect these beliefs are having on their lives and society. This research intends to investigate the structures and ideologies of the New Atheist movement, in order to begin to grasp the potential outcomes of such a movement on the lives of participants and the wider society.

References

Harries, R. 2010. Foreword. Pp. xi-xii in Religion and The New Atheism: A critical Appraisal. Amersfoort, The Netherlands: Brill.

Inspiring Quotes

Representation matters, and when various media reports combined to create the “New Atheist” meme without mentioning the contributions of the women involved in the movement, the result was that the meme itself became masculinized. And because contemporary atheism has become so synonymous with this initially identified group, women atheists may well continue to be overlooked by the mainstream (or will, as some female skeptics have, reject inclusion on principle). It’s a state of affairs very much in line with the history of women in other fields in which battling continued institutional neglect—as opposed to intrinsic hostility—is an ongoing theme.

So let’s reframe. For every mention of Hitchens, counter with a mention of Hecht. For every theory that male atheists are purer or more confrontational, let’s ask why we gender the philosophy of nonbelief to begin with. The ranks of atheists who don’t fit the popular profile are increasing, and with more attention paid to who isn’ta white male author with a fancy-pants book contract, the public face of nonbelief may begin to look as diverse as atheism’s adherents actually are. And if the work of women like Hecht, Jacoby, McCreight, and Gaylor indicates anything, it’s that there’s a need for atheist voices from all genders and sexes to—very rationally—make themselves heard.

Behavior rather than belief seems to be the defining factor of the spiritual atheist. Those who call themselves spiritual are engaged in helping others, caring for the environment, enjoying the outdoors, and generally spending time meditating on central themes. We can't fault that.

...what we would like to see, while no evidence for any gods exists or seems to be forthcoming, is that religion is practiced by adults, in their places of worship, without teaching anything other than comparative religion to children in the schools, without tax exemptions, and what we would also like to see is that religious belief is no longer perceived as some kind of necessary prerequisite for being a moral and responsible and loving and caring human being. Because it isn’t.

...here's the thing. When faced with horrors in our past -- our personal history, or our human history -- non-believers don't have any need to defend them. When non-believers look at a human history full of genocide, infanticide, slavery, forced marriage, etc. etc. etc., we're entirely free to say, "Damn. That was terrible. That was some seriously screwed-up shit we did. We were wrong to do that. Let's not ever do that again."

But for people who believe in a holy book, it's not that simple. When faced with horrors in their religion's history -- horrors that their holy book defends, and even praises -- believers have to do one of two things. They have to either a) cherry-pick the bits they like and ignore the bits they don't; or b) come up with contorted rationalizations for why the most blatant, grotesque, black-and-white evil really isn't all that bad.

"Debunking creationism may not be an appropriate topic to submit to Evolution or Paleobiology, but creationism is believed by millions and supported by well-funded institutions that promote it avidly. Therefore, I think, in addition to their responsibilities to their professions, scientists also have a responsibility to enter into the public discussion on these topics. Otherwise, the field is just abandoned to the creationists. The same goes with topics like global warming and the weirdly resurgent phobia about vaccinations. These issues affect the public well-being and those with the expertise need to participate in the discussion. Similarly, participating in discussions on SO is my, very modest, way of playing the role of "public intellectual."